Remanded

A.P.Sulaiman v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission and

Kerala HC22 Nov 2011WP(C)/36236/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging the rejection of a complaint alleging human rights violations and ostracism by the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. The Court held that the Registrar lacked the jurisdiction to dismiss the complaint in limine and directed reconsideration by the Commission.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Registrar to take back the complaint and place it for consideration of the Commission after completing the procedure under Regulation 23, with a reasoned order.

A.P.Sulaiman Vs Kerala State Human… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2011 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 36236 of 2010(D)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER0

¶8

---------------

¶9

A.P.SULAIMAN,S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI, ARULIPARAMBIL HOUSE,P.O.VILYUR,OTTAPPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679 309.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD)

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------

¶13

1. KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, ARKANILAYAM,M.P.APPAN ROAD,VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶14

2. MUHAMMEDKUTTY,S/O.MUHAMMED VAIDYAR, MUTHARATHODY HOUSE,P.O.VILAYUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679309.

¶15

3. HAMZA DARIMI,S/O.MOIDEEN HAJI, PULIKKAL PARAMBIL HOUSE,P.O.VILAYUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PIN-679 309.

¶16

R2 & E3 BY ADVS. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

¶17

SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON SMT.ANJU P.NAIR

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.11.2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 36236 of 2010(D)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.P1. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT .

¶25

EXT.P2. COPY OF THE SECOND COMPLAINT DATED 28.10.2010 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPODNENT.

¶26

EXT.P3. COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY HE PETITIONER FROM THE FIRS RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :

¶28

EXT.R2(A). COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION FIELD BY RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 ALONG WITH THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PATTAMBI IN OS 68/2010 DATED 29.6.2010.

¶29

EXT.R2(B). COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PATTAMBI DATED 3.11.2010.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.A. TO JUDGE

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

WP(C).NO. 36236 of 2010

¶35

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2011

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Being aggrieved by Ext.P3 order issued by the Registrar of the first respondent Commission, rejecting Ext.P1 complaint submitted by the petitioner, this writ petition is filed. It is stated that Ext.P1 is a complaint alleging violation of human right, on the basis that respondents 2 and 3 had imposed Ostracism. Ext.P3 indicates that the petition was rejected for the reason that the subject mentioned in the complaint is beyond the jurisdiction of the commission.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, by virtue of section 2(d) of the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993, the word 'human rights' is defined as rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of individual guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the counsel, the freedom of conscience

¶39

and the right to freely to profess, practice and propagate religion is a right protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

WP(C).No.36236/2010 2

¶41

Since violation of rights to liberty, equality and dignity of individual guaranteed by the Constitution is a human right, any violation effected through imposition of Ostracism will amount to violation of a human right and Ext.P1 complaint ought to have been entertained by the first respondent, is the contention.

¶42

In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent, all the allegations regarding imposition of Ostracism is stoutly denied. The said respondent enumerates reasons, which according to them are extraneous, led to filing of such a complaint before the 1^st respondent commission.

¶43

While considering the issue, I am not intending to look into the merits of the allegations in Ext.P1 complaint. But the limited question need be considered is only regarding sustainability of Ext.P3 order. I notice that as per Regulation 17 of the Human Rights Commission ( Procedure) Regulation 2001, the Commission has got power to dismiss any complaint in limine, if the matter is outside the purview of the jurisdiction of

¶44

the commission or on any other ground. But such power is vested only with the commission, and is not extended to any ministerial officer of the commission. Going by clause 23 of the

¶45

WP(C).No.36236/2010

¶46

¶47

above said Regulations, the ministerial officers are bound to register any complaint received with respect to human rights violation and to place it before the member concerned or the chairman, as the case may be. Clause 24 of the Regulation again mention about dismissing of the complaint in limine by the commission. Since Ext.P3 does not reflect any consideration by the Commission and since it does not contain any reasoning in support of the findings, I am of the view that a reconsideration of the matter by the commission is necessary.

¶48

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the Registrar of the 1^st respondent Commission to take back Ext.P1 complaint and to place it for consideration of the Commission, after completing the procedure contemplated under Regulation 23, if it is not already not complied with. The 1^st respondent Commission will consider maintainability of Ext.P1 submitted by the petitioner, if necessary after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and take a decision thereof, with a reasoned order issued .

¶49

Needless to say that if the commission is convinced that the complaint is maintainable, it will be free to proceed with

¶50

WP(C).No.36236/2010

¶51

¶52

further steps as contemplated under the relevant provisions. I make it clear that I have not expressed anything on the merits of the complaint or any finding regarding its maintainability. The parties will be at liberty to agitate all issues before the 1^st respondent Commission.

¶53

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE

¶54

pmn/

¶55

WP(C).No.36236/2010 5

A.P.Sulaiman v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.P.Sulaiman v. Kerala State Human Rights Commission and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijayan Vs the State of Kerala and 3 Others

Lasina P.V.C. Vs Calicut University

Dr.Seena N.K Vs State of Kerala

R.K.Raghavan Vs the Assistant Engineer, Kseb

Devassia P.J. Vs State of Kerala and Others

Consumers Association, Palakkad Vs Union of India